President in court

Turkey is definitely passing through some very interesting times. Many people are trying to concentrate nowadays on the prospects of resolving the Kurdish issue through a new civilian initiative. There appears to be political will. The military is apparently supporting the government’s efforts. On the other hand, people supporting Turkey’s European Union bid are very concerned that despite all the efforts of the Czech presidency, its term might come to an end without even opening one chapter.

Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Angela Merkel of Germany, the two most outstanding "friends" of Turkey among the leaders of the EU countries, have started re-trumpeting their "privileged partnership" obsessive offer for Turkey rather than full membership. Developments in Cyprus and around the Cyprus problem require increased attention and a reaffirmation for a negotiated settlement mutually acceptable for the two peoples of the eastern Mediterranean island. Yet, rather than focusing more on these and similar other important issues, Turkey is in discussion about whether the president of the country can be brought to court to give an account of the missing 1 trillion liras of the former RP.

Some are more equal

To put it straight, it is of course unthinkable to grant any individual in a modern democracy a special and privileged position in front of law. The constitution clearly underlines the supremacy of law and equality of all citizens in front of law. Yet, contrary to that general and very important principle that everyone must be equal in front of law, we have layers of privileged classes. Unfortunately, everyone is equal, but some are more equal. Turkey must reconsider the limits of immunity.

One is the parliamentarians and ministers. They are enjoying a very high degree of judicial immunity, with some exceptions like committing crimes against the state before being elected to Parliament. In that context, nowadays we have the controversy of the Democratic Society Party, or DTP, deputies. If they continue to go to court and testify in connection with the charges that they were involved in separatism before being elected to Parliament, can they be forcefully taken by police for an interrogation by a prosecutor? The legislative framework allows such a practice, but the country is discussing for some time whether undertaking such a move be politically correct at a time when Turkey is pondering a new Kurdish initiative.

Another group is the civil servants. Under current laws on the prosecution of civil servants, unless authorization from the immediate superior, often the minister, is obtained a senior civil servant cannot be brought to court. Then, we have the military. Not only is the same law on the prosecution of public applied there, members of the military can be tried in military courts for crimes they commit while serving in military. Judges and prosecutors, for example, can be tried only if they are referred to the Judges and Prosecutors High Board by the justice minister. This list can be extended further. What is clear is that in this country, unfortunately, the principle of equality of all in front of law is just a fairy tale applicable only to ordinary citizens.

Yet, the president of the Republic has no immunity whatsoever under the current Constitution for crimes s/he might have committed or alleged to have committed before becoming the president while for the period in office s/he can be prosecuted by the high court only with the allegation of treason against the state and if Parliament referred s/he to the high court with a qualified vote.

Irrespective whether Gül is guilty, taking the president to court on a petty charge, on the other hand, will definitely hurt the reputation of the presidential office. Can we not wait until Gül completes his term in office and then take him to court? To what purpose will it serve to stir up such a controversy and hurt the presidency now? Why are we wasting our precious time?